Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Dumb Things Camera Companies are Still Doing

dslrbodies.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

301–310 of 393 posts

Re: Dumb Things Camera Companies are Still Doing

#301

Post by brudgers »

snowwrestler wrote: post #259
brudgers wrote: post #149

I love 1/4-20 sockets. Attach my camera to a flash bracket? Yep. Attach an eyebolt to attach a carabiner to attach a neck strap? Yep. Attach a hand strap or a 40mm, 80mm, or 200mm Arca Swiss plate. Yep. Yep, Yep and Yep. There's nothing stopping a photographer from permanently attaching an Arca-Swiss plate to the bottom of a camera body with a bit of cyanoacrylate or some screws if it makes better photographs. For me…

I think you're missing the point. If camera manufacturers just molded an Arca Swiss dovetail into the bottom edge of their cameras, then you could have both solid, easy QR compability and the 1/4 socket--simultaneously. The way it works now, you have to use the 1/4 socket to get QR compatibility.

When I use my flash bracket, I bolt the flash bracket to the camera. When I use the camera with flash bracket with my tripod, I bolt an Arca Swiss compatible plate to the flash bracket using another 1/4-20 hole in the bracket. A third 1/4-20 hole allows me to leave the $0.75 1/4-20 eyebolt (stainless steel no less) I use for a carabiner + neck strap on the flash bracket.

That said, from an engineering perspective the long term durability of a plastic molded dovetail when clamped in a metal Arca Swiss clamp might be a challenge because the Arca Swiss system is not designed around that degree of dissimilarity of material hardness (not that I have anything against plastic). One of the characteristics of Arca Swiss connections is that they are not based on a formal standard and this leads to minor dimensional variability among components that is mitigated by clamping the clamp tighter or buying components from a company like Arca-Swiss at the prices their products command.

Potential durability aside, a molded in dovetail would increase the bulk of a camera and generally the trend seems to be away from camera bulk all things being equal. While a molded in adapter might increase stability in some cases, in others it would decrease it. Setting a camera on a table is an obvious case. Any other mounting is also going to be through a longer lever arm and with a higher center of gravity.

Re: Dumb Things Camera Companies are Still Doing

#302

Post by ISL »

snowwrestler wrote: post #259
brudgers wrote: post #149

I love 1/4-20 sockets. Attach my camera to a flash bracket? Yep. Attach an eyebolt to attach a carabiner to attach a neck strap? Yep. Attach a hand strap or a 40mm, 80mm, or 200mm Arca Swiss plate. Yep. Yep, Yep and Yep. There's nothing stopping a photographer from permanently attaching an Arca-Swiss plate to the bottom of a camera body with a bit of cyanoacrylate or some screws if it makes better photographs. For me…

I think you're missing the point. If camera manufacturers just molded an Arca Swiss dovetail into the bottom edge of their cameras, then you could have both solid, easy QR compability and the 1/4 socket--simultaneously. The way it works now, you have to use the 1/4 socket to get QR compatibility.

A dovetail would change the way a camera feels in-hand. For all the non-Arca-Swiss users, a dovetail would forever be caught on things without adding utility.

Re: Dumb Things Camera Companies are Still Doing

#303

Post by chiph »

nakedrobot2 wrote: post #203
nakedrobot2 wrote: post #200

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The issue is startup time. Do you want to wait 30 seconds after you turn on your camera?

By the way, some cameras do run linux, and they take 5-15 seconds to start up. If a camera does take long to startup, it is because it's running linux. These are typically security cameras, which are switched on basically only once, or as a periodic power cycle. Consumer cameras always use a RTOS. Ambarella makes chips for both cases. for example the H2 is for linux, while the S5 is the same chip but for RTOS.

My first digital camera was a Kodak DC220 [0] and it ran the Digita operating system. [1] Boot time was in the 20-30 seconds (good for the time) but you would often miss shots. "Spontaneity" wasn't in it's vocabulary. Photos were surprisingly good for a 1 megapixel camera with fixed-focus.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kodak_DC_Series

[1] http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/DC220/DC220Acgi.HTM

Re: Dumb Things Camera Companies are Still Doing

#304

Post by hyperbovine »

wazoox wrote: post #164

As said in this [1] article, one of the worst thing camera makers are guilty of is not slapping Android on their cameras to open up th instant publication, photo manipulation, etc. It's a shame that a professional camera is 90% of the time simply not as useful as a smartphone, even ... as a camera. [1]: https://mondaynote.com/memo-to-camera-makers-put-android-in-...

Yes that's what cameras need... Java. Ever used Android TV? Or Android for that matter? Lags and crashes on the camera OS would absolutely bug the shit out of most photographers.

Re: Dumb Things Camera Companies are Still Doing

#305

Post by ISL »

sliverstorm wrote: post #204
fhood wrote: post #201

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Quick google search tells me that I can power a model 2 b rpi for 5 hours off of a camera battery. And you can better than an rpi for power consumption. I could be missing something here, but I used to do a lot of work that boiled down to building linux control units for machines and it genuinely isn't that difficult most of the time.

A DSLR can "sleep" with the power switch on, waiting for a shutter press for weeks. I actually have no idea how long it can go, because the drain seems to be practically zero...

This is an incredible feature. Coming from a mirrorless background, the ability to pull the camera from a waist pouch with a gloved hand, put it to my eye, and press the shutter has been a revelation.

It is many seconds faster, making shots possible that I never would have taken with my mirrorless body.

Re: Dumb Things Camera Companies are Still Doing

#306

Post by mod »

brudgers wrote: post #243
dpark wrote: post #194

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The only thing wrong with the 1/4-20 mount is that there's only one. Camera manufacturers should add a second one half an inch to the side so that plates can be mounted with two points of attachment, which would eliminate concerns with twisting and loosening. Wanting to force the weight and cost of Arca Swiss on everyone is just selfish. In fact most of these complaints are just examples of wanting everyone else to s…

For some applications, Velcro on the bottom of the camera and top of the accessory might mitigate twisting. I've also read about people using compressible materials to increase friction. For what it's worth, there's nothing preventing modifying a camera to add a second screw.

I'm a pretty avid DIYer with a lot of tools, taps, dies, vises, etc.

I would not feel comfortable either 1) drilling into the bottom of my DSLR, or 2) taking it apart to see if I could safely drill into a given spot.

I would say there's quite a lot preventing me from modifying it, and even more to prevent normal users.

Re: Dumb Things Camera Companies are Still Doing

#307

Post by knolan »

wazoox wrote: post #164

As said in this [1] article, one of the worst thing camera makers are guilty of is not slapping Android on their cameras to open up th instant publication, photo manipulation, etc. It's a shame that a professional camera is 90% of the time simply not as useful as a smartphone, even ... as a camera. [1]: https://mondaynote.com/memo-to-camera-makers-put-android-in-...

Having used the Lytro Illium, which appears to run in some flavor of Android I have to disagree.

I expect my cameras to be mechanically fast. I don’t want software getting in the way.

Re: Dumb Things Camera Companies are Still Doing

#308

Post by rhinoceraptor »

Pxtl wrote: post #297
rhinoceraptor wrote: post #234

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don’t think people really want or need that. A big pro DSLR is a big investment, it will last 5-10 years easily. Any SoC will be ancient by the time it’s 5 years old, and no one will want to support it. And who would want to edit photos on a big, heavy DSLR when they have a much more convenient smartphone, or iPad with a better screen? The battery drain is also an issue. DSLRs use a mechanical shutter, which is sor…

The challenge then is that quality camera chips historically vastly outdid the ability of corresponding communication chips. So if you went for the "camera as peripheral" approach, its ability to talk quickly to the phone is critical... and my 8-year-old camera produces large file sizes that would be painful over slow bluetooth of its day.

I have the lightning SD card adapter, I find it (as a hobbyist) to be pretty convenient when I want to immediately have my photos on my phone.

Re: Dumb Things Camera Companies are Still Doing

#309

Post by dpark »

shagie wrote: post #265
dpark wrote: post #256

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's a pretty good idea, especially if the camera body has indentations that the set screw can really bite into. A second screw socket in the camera body would be better, though. It would be 100% backward compatible and solve the issue completely.

If you look at a Pentax 7 bottom plate, http://forum.mflenses.com/userpix/271_PENTAX67BOTTOM_1.jpg you can see that additional screw location. I am certain one of the holes in the hex plate matches it.

Good for Pentax for actually solving this issue. :)

Re: Dumb Things Camera Companies are Still Doing

#310

Post by brudgers »

dpark wrote: post #254
brudgers wrote: post #243

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For some applications, Velcro on the bottom of the camera and top of the accessory might mitigate twisting. I've also read about people using compressible materials to increase friction. For what it's worth, there's nothing preventing modifying a camera to add a second screw.

Drilling into the body of a camera that costs multiple thousand dollars to add a second screw seems like a risky maneuver and definitely warranty-voiding. I would personally advise against this. Adding Velcro doesn't seem to me like it would do much for vibration or slippage (large rotation, yes, small scale rotation, not so much), since Velcro is not a rigid connection. Rubber or similar spacers can help but it's st…

To me, the degree to which a camera is likely to see a built in Arca Swiss plate is inversely proportional to the degree to which it costs multiple thousands of dollars because the higher the price the more modular the design. The reason for more modular designs is that the variety of systems with which high end cameras are designed to integrate tends to be higher. Or conversely the more likely the camera is to be designed to lock the photographer into a proprietary systems sold by the camera manufacturer.

In terms of adding a second screw, a multiple thousand dollar camera body is probably not the ideal first subject for a person who has never disassembled a camera or done similarly fine grained work. Such a person should perhaps hire a technician or practice on broken equipment first in cases where such modifications seem worth the effort/cost. Hoping camera manufacturers would design around the edge case is not much of a plan.

Post reply on HN